Citation Nr: 1018716
Decision Date: 05/20/10 Archive Date: 06/04/10
DOCKET NO. 04-37 989A ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Christopher Murray, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Veteran had active military service from March 1971 to
December 1972 and from March 1980 to July 1983. The
Veteran's reported service from December 1972 to March 1980
has not been verified.
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal of a September 2002 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The Board notes that, in a February 2008 Board decision, the
issue of service connection for a low back disorder was
denied. In October 2009, the veteran submitted a private
medical opinion related to his low back disability. It
appears the veteran is seeking to file an application to
reopen his claim of service connection for a low back
disorder. As this issue has not yet been adjudicated by the
RO, it is REFERRED to the RO for its consideration. See
Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (1995).
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the
appellant if further action is required.
REMAND
The appellant testified before a Veterans Law Judge in
September 2007, and the issue currently on appeal was
remanded by the Board in February 2008 for further
development. Since the February 2008 remand, the Veterans
Law Judge who conducted the September 2007 hearing left the
Board. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.717 (2009), the Veteran
was afforded the opportunity to testify at another hearing.
In April 2010, he submitted a statement requesting to be
scheduled for a videoconference hearing. As the appellant's
requested hearing has not yet been conducted, this matter
should be REMANDED to schedule the appellant for a
videoconference Board hearing per his request. See 38 C.F.R.
§§ 20.703, 20.704, 20.1304(a) (2009).
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
Schedule the appellant for a
videoconference hearing per his request.
Appropriate notification should be given
to the appellant and his representative,
if any, and such notification should be
documented and associated with the claims
folder.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009).
_________________________________________________
MILO H. HAWLEY
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2009).